Infrastructure Impact Fee and a Long Term Financial Plan for Infrastructure, by BC

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 11:46 AM
Subject: Infrastructure Impact Fee and a Long Term Financial Plan for Infrastructure
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,

I have changed the subject line to read "Infrastructure Impact Fee" for clarity, since in some cities "Development Impact Fee" refers to the mitigation fee for affordable housing.

Why do we need Infrastructure Impact Fee? Why is the EIR not sufficient to mitigate all development impact?

Take the example of the EIR for GPA. It tries to estimation the impact of a 30% population growth from 60,000 people to over 90,000.

In the section on "Public Services and Recreation". Every category is reported as "Less Than Significant," including Fire Protection, Police Protection, Library Facility Services, Park and Recreation. The reasons used are either there are already general plan policies or municipal code to ensure a proper level of service or that this growth will happen incrementally over a 25-year period of time. (See quotes from EIR at the bottom of this email.)

However, general plan policies or municipal code do not provide funding sources to ensure the level of services needed. The growth will happen incrementally, but the property tax from growth does not pay for all facilities needed for increased civil services.

Here is what the current EIR process does. It declares each project as "less than significant" on city services. After 10 projects, the accumulated impact will eventually become significant. And the next EIR will say this: "The impact is already 'significant' and it remains 'significant' with this new project. Thus, there is no need to mitigate the impact." So, as a result, none of the project would need to mitigate the impact on city services.

Then, who will eventually pay to build a new library when the current one is too crowded?

Who will pay to build community centers?

And who will pay for a new city hall? We the taxpayers.

The city needs to plan for the future and make a financial plan for the future.
Not one project at a time. And get a loan for each project.

If any of the community benefits (or voluntary community amenities) you have in mind falls into the category of basic services, like fire, police, library, park, community center, bike path,... They should be take care of through Infrastructure Impact Fee.

Any project which does not need any GPA would also pay their share of Infrastructure Impact Fee.

 

If the developer is willing to offer more beyond the mandatory Infrastructure Impact Fee, that is then considered community benefits (or voluntary community amenities). Of course, you can always waive Infrastructure Impact Fee if the community benefits (or voluntary community amenities) is beyond the mandatory amount.

Please make a long term investment for the city and a long term financial plan.

----------------------- from EIR Section 4.12 Public Services and Recreation ------------------

GPA EIR 4.12-8 Fire Protection Service => Less than significant
"The General Plan includes policies and strategies that, once adopted, would ensure adequate fire protection services are available for the residents of Cupertino.... Consequently, compliance with the State and local regulations, in conjunction with confirmation by the SCCFD that facilities, staff, and equipment would be adequate to accommodate anticipated future growth,..."

GPA EIR 4.12-12: Police Protection Service => Less than significant
"Further, it is unlikely that implementation of the proposed Project would significantly increase the degree or incidence of need for mutual aid from neighboring agencies
because anticipated growth under the General Plan would occur incrementally throughout the 26-year buildout horizon."

GPA EIR 4.12-24: Library Facility and Services => Less than significant
"While an overall increase in residents is expected, service growth under the proposed Project would occur incrementally throughout the 26-year horizon; therefore, potential impacts resulting from increased demand for library services would not occur in the immediate future."

GPA EIR 4.12-32: Parks and Recreation => Less than significant
"Overall, the proposed Project would result in development allocation increases throughout the city that would increase population, and subsequently the demand to parks and recreation facilities throughout the city. However, because buildout would occur incrementally throughout the 26-year horizon, and future development would be subject to comply with the Municipal Code Chapters 14.05 and 18.24, and the General Plan policies listed above that would ensure that future development provide their fair-share of parks to help meet the City’s target of three acres per 1,000 residents, impacts would be less than significant."

Development Impact Fee for Library, Comm. Centers, Public Safety, etc. by Liang

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 11:15 PM
Subject: Development Impact Fee for Library, Comm. Centers, Public Safety, etc.
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, planning@cupertino.org

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners,

Cupertino should have a sustainable financing plan to provide basic services for the growing number of residents. This can be achieved by charging Development Impact Fee, as many other cities have done.

These fees help mitigate the aggregated impact of new development projects on basic city services, like parks, library, community centers, public safety needs, city staff and facility needs, sewage and water systems. Every new development should contribute to the Development Impact Fee.

For example, Palo Alto has Development Impact Fee that covers Parks, Community Centers, Libraries, Public Safety Facilities, and General Government Facilities.

Palo Alto Development Impact fee (incl. Park, Comm Ctr, Public Safety) 8-17-15 .pdf

In addition to the Development Impact Fee, Palo Alto also charges a Transportation Impact Fee as Citywide Transportation Impact Fee $3,439 per net new PM peak hour trip. (Also specified in the document above)

Cupertino should have a sustainable financing plan to provide basic services for the residents. Every new development, whether or not it requires GPA, should contribute to the Development Impact fee.

Eventually, such impact fee can help fund additional library branches, community centers, police and fire stations or a new city hall. Other cities have also assessed impact fees for emergency services, sewage and water systems, etc.

Cupertino should not reply on community benefits (or voluntary community amenities) derived from granting exception for the General Plan to pay for basic city services. If we do, there is some flaw with the city's financing structure and it should be fixed.

Note that these fees, if adopted, give the Council negotiation power. When necessary, the Council can always give developers a discount as an incentive to promote a certain type of development in certain areas, as San Jose has done. And when economy is slow, the Council can also suspend the collection of the fee for a short time at your discretion.

 

Please consider adopt the Development Impact Fee to truly mitigate the impact of new development projects on basic city services. With so many projects already built and so many new projects being proposed, Cupertino desperately need to adopt Development Impact Fee to provide basic city services.

 

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Enact Transportation Impact Fee Before Approving Any New Project

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 9:16 PM
Subject: Please Enact Transportation Impact Fee Before Approving Any New Project
To: City Council citycouncil@cupertino.org

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,

Please enact Transportation Impact Fee to help mitigate accumulated citywide impact created by new development projects, as specified in the new General Plan, as soon as possible. Please do not approve any new project until the Transportation Impact Fee is in place.

Policy M-10.1: Transportation Improvement Plan

Develop and implement an updated citywide transportation
improvement plan necessary to accommodate vehicular,
pedestrian and bicycle transportation improvements to
meet the City’s needs.

Policy M-10.2: Transportation Impact Fee

Ensure sustainable funding levels for the Transportation
Improvement Plan by enacting a transportation impact fee
for new development.

Such fee should be imposed on all new projects whether or not an EIR is required. The mitigation measures suggested in the project-specific EIR normally only mitigate project impacts in the immediate surrounding areas. But the citywide accumulated impacts are not mitigated.

 

The EIR of 2014 GPA concluded that the traffic condition of Cupertino is "Significant and Unavoidable." The consultants then presented a long list of mitigation measures to enhance the situation. However, the consultants did admit that even after all of the mitigation measures are implemented, the condition would still be "Significant and Unavoidable."

Given that situation, we cannot afford to sit and do nothing and just watch the condition to become worse with each project. The EIR already made it clear that it is not possible to even mitigate the current traffic congestion. However, having a long term transportation plan, paid for by Transportation Impact Fee, is better than not doing anything.

Please consider to start actions to enact the Transportation Impact Fee.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Incomplete Staff Report for Study Session on Civic Center by BetterCupertino

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:04 PM
Subject: Incomplete Staff Report for Study Session on Civic Center
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Clerk CityClerk@cupertino.org

[Please put this as a written communication for Oct. 20 Council Meeting.]

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,

    Thank you for hosting a study session for the questions of whether to put Civic Center or Vallco on the ballot to get voter's approval.

    However, there is insufficient background provided for Civic Center. The Staff Report should provide the estimated cost of Civic Center and what happened on Aug. 18 so that the voters get alerted of the importance of such study session. Especially the financial impact to the city.

   The Staff Report spells out the cost of different elections. But we still have no information on the funding strategy. As of right now, any information on the funding strategy is still buried inside the Civic Center Master Plan that's more than 600 pages long.

 

   The agenda description should also clearly specify the financial impact of the Civic Center Master Plan. Yet, once again, the agenda item failed to mention the estimated cost of the project, which is up to $70 million.

   Neither the agenda item nor the staff report mentioned the potential financial burden of a long term debt for the city. That's what motivated this study session in the first place. But it is not mentioned.

   Please provide further information on Civic Center Master Plan for the study session.

Sincerely,

BetterCupertino

Accountability: Communication with Consultants for Vallco Project Should be put on Record by BC

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:29 PM
Subject: Follow up to Oral Comment on Agenda Item 4 Contract with M-Group
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava AartiS@cupertino.org

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,

Thank you for addressing my concern in today's meeting, which requests that the City Staff is cc'd on all communications between the consultants and the project applicant.

And thank you, the City Manager for pointing out that the agreement with the consultant already covers that. I hope the agreement with PW&A for Vallco EIR also covers that.

However, the consultant selection process is not well documented in the staff report as in other project.

In the past, the staff report usually mentions when RFQ (Request for Qualification) was sent out and when was the deadline.

For example, on Aug. 18, regarding the Consultant for Citywide Park Master Plan, the staff report states:

"A consultant selection process was initiated to select a consultant team to provide the professional services needed to develop the master plan. A Request for Proposals was issued in June 2015. Proposals from interested firms were received in July and reviewed for qualifications. The most highly qualified firms were interviewed and evaluated based upon selection criteria in early August and then references were checked. Based upon this process, the firm of RHAA (Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey) based in Mill Valley, California was selected as the top choice for this project."

But the staff report for Agenda Item 4 today (Oct. 6, 2015) did not mention such selection process. And the City web page for "Open Request for RFP & RFQs" does not show any RFP or RFQ for this particular project management work for Vallco.

http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=659

Similarly, on June 16, 2015, when Vallco EIR consultant was selected. The staff report did not mention any RFQ/RFP or the selection process of the consultant. From City Records, we did not find any RFQ/RFP for Vallco EIR work either.

This calls into question the qualification, objectivity and independence of these two consultants for Vallco projects.

The agreement is signed between the consultants and the City of Cupertino. The EIR especially need to provide an impartial evaluation of the project.

 

The developer should not be allowed to communicate directly in private with any consultant who signed an agreement with the City. All communications should be cc'd to the City Staff. The City Staff should be present on all in-person meetings or phone calls (through conference call).

 

If this is not already covered in the consultant agreement, we would like to request that the agreement be amended to ensure the accountability and transparency of the process. The consultants should be accountable to the City of Cupertino, who signed the contract agreements.

Regards,

Liang

No Rezoning of Vallco and Many Questions by Carrie O.

From: Carrie O.
Date: Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 12:07 PM
Subject: City Council Meeting Questions re: No Rezoning of Vallco
To: citycouncil@cupertino.org
Cc: cityclerk@cupertino.org, info@thehillsatvallco.com

To whom it may concern,

I'm writing to express my antipathy for the plan to re-zone the Vallco Shopping Mall into a mixed use space in any way.  I'm hoping my email letter here will be entered into the record as a set of concerns pertaining to your City Council Meeting tonight regarding the ongoing possibilities of rezoning the Vallco space from it's current Retail Only status.  

As a resident of the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood, my family will be immediately impacted by any changes made to the zoning of Vallco.  

For your records, I would like to see the following at the Vallco site:

 - Instead of changing Vallco from the Retail-Only model it is currently zoned for, I would like the mall developed as it is - Shops and more shops, with upgraded aesthetics and favorable leasing to attract stores, and only stores.

In addition to my stated interest as a close resident to Vallco, I'd like answers to these questions regarding the process going forward:

 1. Are you aware that the proposed 2 million square foot of new, un-zoned for office space or the 800 new un-zoned for apartment homes are *out of sight* on the direct mail advertising of the Hills at Vallco?  

 - Do you think these mailers are accurate and useful to the public, without disclosing the proposed re-zoning and the amount of new office and housing added to our neighborhood, at the expense of retail and at the expense of quality of life for residents?

2. How will you address mine and other's concerns, when you have recently passed changes to your process that allow new projects to be proposed and permitted 'at your discretion'?

- What were the needs you were addressing in adopting such a business-friendly approach to city development?

- What cities have used this model before?  

- What challenges do you see for policing yourselves with this amount of 'discretionary' power?

3. How will you off-set the huge disparity to Cupertino High School if you allow the 800 apartment houses to be built?  

- As I understand it, Lynbrook has 1000 students currently, while Cupertino High has 1800 - already an inequitable number.  If this unwanted Hills at Vallco is built, I've seen projections for Cupertino High of up to 2800.  

- Are you prepared to bus students to other campuses or enact other measures to bring numbers for the high school densities inline across FUHSD?

4.  What part of the development and permitting process allowed for the adjustments, after the fact, to the Main Street project so that approved Senior Housing, the Park, and the Exercise Club were removed and replaced with Office Space?

- How can we avoid seeing changes like this in future developments?

5. Sandhill Developers have had significant difficulties working successfully to plan on the Sunnyvale Downtown development and on Cupertino's Main Street.  Why are you working with them after two notable and major failures?

6. Major traffic, sewage, water use, air pollution, and school overcrowding are the inevitable challenges caused by the proposed Hills at Vallco.  Why are you allowing Sandhill to continue stating in advertising mailers that they'll work with all involved to mitigate these concerns when they have a record that shows the opposite?

Sincerely,

Carrie O.

Market Study Does Not Support Two Million Square Feet of Office at Vallco, by BC

From: Better Cupertino
Date: Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 3:38 PM
Subject: Market Study Does Not Support Two Million Square Feet of Office at Vallco
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,

   We would like to share this information based on the GPA Market Study. It is important to look at the data in each report and not just read the conclusion, which is very often misleading and without jusitified reasoning.

   We hope that you make decisions that affect the lives of 60,000 residents based on accurate data.

----------------------

Market Study Does Not Support Two Million Square Feet of Office at Vallco
http://bettercupertino.blogspot.com/2015/09/market-study-does-not-support-office-at-vallco.html

The Market Study done in 2014 for the GPA in fact shows only a demand of 805,428 square feet of office by the year 2035. The estimated demand for office space in Cupertino is 43,300 square feet per year. The 2,000,000 square feet is the equivalent of 46.2 years of office growth in Cupertino. Not only the proposed Hills at Vallco will devastate the traffic condition, it will kill any chance of another major corporation to settle down in Cupertino. The capacity of our traffic infrastructure is very limit since there is literally no mass transit.

During the General Plan Amendment (GPA) Process, the City of Cupertino hired the consulting firm BAE Urban Economics to conduct a Market Study. Like reading all such consultant reports, ordered by the City, wise readers look at the data collected in the report and derive informed conclusions on their own. The conclusion derived by these consultant reports are often quite biased, and one should read it with caution. The office demand analysis is one such example.


On Page 83 of the Market Study, it shows that the "estimated demand for office space in Cupertino averaging approximately 43,300 square feet per year. After accounting for projects currently entitled or under construction, this suggests that minimum net office demand will total approximately 156,000 square feet by 2020 and 805,400 square feet by 2035, as shown in Table 34."

ABAG projection is regarded as aggressive by many already. However, the Council directed the staff to add "2-3 million square feet of office" when the GPA process was initiated from Aug. 21, 2012 Council Meeting. Therefore, the consultants have to find a way to deliver the expected "office demand".

The Market Study argues:

Table 34 factor in the capacity to accommodate the proposed Apple Campus 2 along with another new corporate campus equivalent in scale to the recent projects shown in Table 33, in addition to the minimum demand estimates that were developed based on projected employment. As shown, this results in a net new demand of approximately 2.9 million square feet by 2020 and 3.6 million square feet by 2035. Given the recent shortage of office spaces in Cupertino containing more than 10,000 contiguous square feet, a new recommended office allocation could also allow for multi-tenant office developments, which could create the space needed for mid-size companies to grow in Cupertino as well as accommodate a new major technology company or future expansion of an existing firm.

Even if a new corporate campus is expected, Table 33 (below) shows the office square footage is mostly under 1.5 million. Even though there is only a shortage of 10,000 contiguous square feet of office, the consultants from BAE Urban Economics concluded that Cupertino has an additional office demand of 2 million square feet, which is quite a stretch. And Table 34 shows the ballooned total office demand of 3.5 million. Take away the 2 million for an non-existent corporate office. Take away the 750,000 square feet already allocated to Apple and under construction. The true office demand is only 805,428 square feet by 2035.

 

Besides Cupertino City Council can always initiate a new GPA process to grant an additional 1.5 million or 2 million square feet of office space if ever another company wants to settle down in Cupertino. There is no need to pre-allocate it in the General Plan.

 

And there is certainly no way to justify giving this 2,000,000 square feet of office to Vallco at all. A major corporation headquartered in Cupertino brings in sales tax plus property tax and a brand name recognition, like Apple brings to Cupertino. Yet, 2,000,000 square feet of office at Vallco merely brings in property tax.

 

Two million square feet is the equivalent of 46.2 years of office growth in Cupertino. (2,000,000/43,300=46.2) All cramed in one location within one block from the 3.5 million square feet of office in Apple Campus 2, which include 750,000 extra square feet on top of the original allocation for HP. That's another 17.3 years of office growth. (750,000/43,300=17.3)

 

More than 60 years of office growth all squeezed into one block area to be built within the next 5 years. Will Cupertino ever have the capacity for another major corporation in the near future? Not likely.

 

The capacity of the traffic infrastructure is limited in Cupertino since there is no true mass transit. VTA doesn't have any plan in the next 25 years to introduce light rail or any other transit that can transport tens thousands of people. Therefore, the amount of office space that Cupertino can accommodate is also limited since Cupertino already has insufficient housing.
 

Allocating 2,000,000 square feet office to Vallco is essentially grabbing the space from other property owners in town, whose properties are already zoned for office. These other property owners won't even be able to build a small amount of office as a result since roads leading into Cupertino would be extremely congested. It is simply not fair to other property owners.